SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Suraj @ Atul And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 20 February, 2020

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. – 67

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 6649 of 2020

Applicant :- Suraj @ Atul And 4 Others

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Gaur

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Ali Zamin,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire further proceedings of the Complaint Case No.111/2018 (Satya Prakash vs. Suraj @ Atul and others), under Section 406 I.P.C., Police Station Atmaddaula, District Agra.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that there was no entrustment of property even if it is accepted that remedy available to opposite party no.2 to file a suit for recovery of the money.

From the contents of the complaint version, it cannot be said that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. At last he submitted that the applicant is ready to appear before the court and to face the trial. He sought some time to surrender before the court below.

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the entire proceeding of aforementioned case, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.

However, in the interest of justice, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicants be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.

Order Date :- 20.2.2020

Jitendra

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation